I've just read this and was wondering; if Starfleet can make such massive changes to a ship and still give it the same registry, how do we know what those ships with the 'odd' registaries looked like? This particularly applies to the NCC-1017, this could be a previous design that has been completely modified to almost Constitution standards and appearence (there were some differences) and been allowed to keep it's number.
Edit: Corrected spelling
[ April 23, 2002, 11:24: Message edited by: Wraith ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Before everyone jumps down your throat, Wraith, I'll gently point out that this is in some places the prevailing fandom view.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Such a refit is a possibility, but there is a simpler explanation. How different are Soyuz and Miranda classes? Not too different externally. Or B'Rel and K'Vort classes? Identical.
Not to mention that this explains why the 1701 Enterprise is Enterprise-class (according to Star Trek II) while 1701-A is Constitution class. The Enterprise was the first ship of the new type, and must bear the original name. The Constitution was refitted some time after this, they realized its specs were better, and turned the rest of the original ships into the Constitution class.
[ April 12, 2002, 13:45: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
"registry"
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I agree with Boris, first it was the Enterprise then later when the Constitution herself was refitted, then it was back to the Constitution class. On the other hand, the Enterprise class could be just another sub-class to the Constitution class similarly to the Achenar is to the Constitution class. Or the Soyuz is to the Miranda class.
On the other hand, I do believe at that time Starfleet did rebuild its ships to the latest design to keep up being a modernized fleet. To me unless someone has a real good explanation, The Enterprise and her sisters shouldn't be the only ships in the fleet to recieve any type of refit like that.
I think the 24th century does it to an extent such as replacing things that can be swappable or replaced such as nacelles or bridges or warp cores. Then you got the basic systems refit, replacing the older ones with the newest in an attempt to keep up with modern technology. That is why we still see 100+ year old ships and designs in Star Trek.
Posted by Fedaykin Supastar (Member # 704) on :
I completely agree with you Matrix (and Boris) simply because i'm not really a puritan as far as canonity [is that a word?] goes. I enjoy imagining that ships from Ships of the Starfleet were indeed real starfleet classes/ships. ALtho there are a few contradictions - the one i can remember of the top of my head were the Reliant and Saratoga (from ST:IV presumably)being listed as something other than Miranda class [i cant remember what they were listed as , altho IIRC its Avenger class.
Buzz
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I completely agree with Veers
Posted by CaptAlabin (Member # 733) on :
Boris, I agree with you as well. The real world example would be the USN's Spurance Class Destroyers and Ticonderoga Class Aegis Cruisers. They were both built on the same hulls and the Ticonderoga's were first classified as missile destroyers. The internal and superstructures of both classes are different. This can apply to the Soyuz and Miranda Classes. Another example would be the Nimitz I and Nimitz II (Theodore Roosevelt Class) Classes. These two carrier class can be classified as one class or two. The earlier Nimitzs from Nimitz to the Vinson and the later ones starting with the Roosevelt are different internally.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
The more you build of something, the more you want to tinker with it. Every modeler knows that.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
^ Quite right; actually I doubt that any two Starfleet vessels are exactly the same. Changes introduced in the construction phase, minor updates and modifications made by serving crews would all account for differences between many ships that have the same class. The reason I specifically mentioned NCC-1017 was that according to TOS registry system this was a ship of a type seven before the Connies and I would surmise that it would therefore have had a significantly different original appearance.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I remain firm in my belief that individual ships do not change class, no matter how drastically they are refitted.
The NCC-1701 and her sister ships were never anything but Consitution-class vessels. That was either an Enterprise-class simulator in TWOK, or it was simply the simulator being used by the class of trainees assigned to the Enterprise. It was not a simulator for an Enterprise-class ship, since there is no such thing as an Enterprise-class ship...
-MMoM
[ April 18, 2002, 11:41: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Aircraft use a block system.... The first block may have 300 aircraft..... The second may have 500, but changed in some way The third may have 120 etc.... All are the same type, different letter suffix though... Like the F-15A through F-15E
On the Carriers... The Roosevelt has a different internal layout... The Vinson has a different external layout, with the additional 2 Phalanx systems, so the could be considered a sub-class or different class also... Nimitz (2 Units) Vinson (1 Unit) Roosevelt (6 Units) I would believe that the basic hull/chassis would be the class determination.
Only when changed drastically should the class be changed, or a sub-class added, such as the U.S. Navy AGFs, or Command Ships. These started out life as different classes, but had major changes in everything, sixe, weight, mission, etc.... and became a class of their own....
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
Methinks that the answer lies between Boris and Ritten. I would think that a vessel's class would change very rarely (if ever) - and only because of a fairly drastic change. A refit (which is what happened to the Enterprise prior to TMP should not qualify as a change of class.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
The way I see it is that the E-nil stayed Constitution-class because the overall configuration stayed the same. The same could be said about the Klingon battle cruiser - that is, they are all D7-class whether or not they are K'tinga or TOS style.
A ship like the USS Constellation NCC-1017 though, might have started life in a vastly different configuration. As an example, the ship might have originally been like that Loknar-class, but was later refit to Constitution spec. Now, that would've involved adding an entire secondary hull and neck - an entirely new configuration.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dax: A ship like the USS Constellation NCC-1017 though, might have started life in a vastly different configuration. As an example, the ship might have originally been like that Loknar-class, but was later refit to Constitution spec. Now, that would've involved adding an entire secondary hull and neck - an entirely new configuration.
Yeah, but that's a major change in loadbearing structures & the like. This isn't a battleship work-stopped on the ways & converted into an aircraft carrier halfway through the hull here. You're talking about the equivalent of taking a Liberty ship & building a supertanker out of it.
No matter how much I fiddle with the frame, my Saturn SL1 will never be a Lotus Esprit. No, some things are just cost-prohibitive. I mean, what if all of a sudden a Nebula was turned into a Galaxy or vice-versa? Doesn't that seem mildly absurd?
It's not simply a matter of popping off parts & replacing them with new ones like building a model. There's a lot of work that would need to be done to accomplish somethign like that. I happened to visit Electric Boat's yards in Groton while they were converting some of the old George Washington-class SSBNs into SEALS delivery boats. Part of the works was modifiying some of the old missile tubes into personnel & equipment delivery silos. A seemingly simple task, yes, but one that request extensive rebuilds to the point of sectioning the hull & completely rewitring & restructuring the old missile compartment.
No, while the idea of "lower number" ships being refitted into a "higher" class sounds good on paper, even the slightest analysis tells us it's ineffective in actuality.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Thing is, though, that we don't know what other ship classes were available for the saucer (or even the engineering hull) of the Constellation to have come from, what the default connections and necessary framework for that class were, et cetera.
While the conversion idea may be an artificial explanation, it's a good artificial explanation, and is not subject to your artificial curtailment of the notion.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
^ Yeah good point. Perhaps the NCC-1017 was modified to demonstrate the technology that would be installed on the connie and the general configuration.
As for the block system of designating minor starship warients, this is something I like (tho' Ritten was wrong about the letter being the block designator on US aircraft. There's actually another number, going up in 10s after it eg. F-16D-30). The letter indicates a more comprehensive varient)
The original Excelcior could have a 'full' designation of; Excelcior-NCC-2000-10 in it's final operational configuration. Refits would just have the block number updated and not the class name.
"I remain firm in my belief that individual ships do not change class, no matter how drastically they are refitted."
I agree here, the Constellation would not necessarily be a Connie, I am merely attempting to explain why it looks so similar.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Alot of fan sources just say that several ships before the Connie were upgraded to Connie specs and were near equals. Now I generally agree with this statement, which explains why there is a Connie class Eagle with NCC-956 or something, far less than the 1017 for the Constellation.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I've never understood this "they turned one ship into a different ship" idea. Even claiming that the registry system is nothing resembling chronological is better than that.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: I've never understood this "they turned one ship into a different ship" idea. Even claiming that the registry system is nothing resembling chronological is better than that.
Why? We have the evidence of the connie refits that extensive modifications can be made to a starship and still have the same designation. I'm not saying these ships were reclassified as connies but I'm attempting to explain the similarities between ships with wildly disparate registries.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
NCC-2544 and NCC-50446 are much more widely disparate than NCC-956 and NCC-1701. But you don't have to explain why the Repulse and the Crazy Horse look identical. It's because their class ship has a lower registry than both of them. So what's wrong w/ simply saying that the class ship of the Eagle and the Enterprise has a registry lower than both of those ships?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I was showing that not only are there blocks, there are also suffixes....
a suffix has no limit on the blocks produced under it....
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: NCC-2544 and NCC-50446 are much more widely disparate than NCC-956 and NCC-1701. But you don't have to explain why the Repulse and the Crazy Horse look identical. It's because their class ship has a lower registry than both of them. So what's wrong w/ simply saying that the class ship of the Eagle and the Enterprise has a registry lower than both of those ships?
You mean the Constitution? With NCC-1700? That isn't lower than NCC-956.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Also, look at the 1930's and 1940's especially at battleships and carriers. First the two carriers Lexington and Saratoga were both the first American battleships designed but after Washington treaty of 1921-1922, they were converted into aircraft carriers. Look at their battleship config. and their carrier config. at www.warships1.com. Now because of the Washington Treaty, many navies did major refits to their existing ships. The Itlians gutted out their two WWI era battleships and gave them almost modern look to them. The Japanese extended their ships, put more armor on, new engines, new superstructure and so on. The US after Pearl Harbor refitted about 3-4 WW1 ear ships with a new superstructure looking almost like the newe South Dakota class.
It has been done to the E-nil after TOS. I dobut this was a special event that happened only once. I believe that Starfleet did it before.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Of course, while conversion could occur, my personal thought is that most of the oddballs are vessels named after older vessels.
In other words, whereas the second Federation starship to bear the name "Enterprise" got another dash and the letter "A" tacked on to the end of her registry, such a system might not have been in place previously.
We know, by virtue of the second Defiant-Class Defiant, that it can and has been done, since they both have the same registry (lazy/budget-conscious FX guys aside).
Thus, it may be that the Eagle and Constellation were not really old Connies, or really old ships converted into Connies . . . they may simply have been new-build Constitutions (in whatever era) that were given the name and registry of an older ship.
If (with apologies to those who despise the chronological registry idea) the Enterprise was a new build with a new 1701 registry in 2245, we could simply take a rough linear progression from 2161 and say that the original Eagle and Constellation were built circa 2200-2210, shortly after the Daedalus Class was retired. Naturally, we don't know what might've happened to these vessels . . . perhaps they got caught in whatever mess took place in 2223 that brought about "70 years of unremitting hostility" with the Klingons. Whatever the case, Starfleet took the names and registries, painting them onto new-build Constitutions decades later.
That's my personal take on the issue.
Posted by CaptAlabin (Member # 733) on :
I am writing a conjectural history of the Constitution Class. I suggest that the design of the Constitution Class was practical enough to convert the existing designs of other starfleet ships into Constitutions because of hositilties with the Klingons. The Eagle, Constellation, and Republic were all converted as test vehicles before the Constitution NCC-1700 was launched. These ships were later given operational status. The 1600 regos of the Constitution was actually of the Intrepid Class (because of the NCC-1631 registry) and these ships were converted because war nearly seemed imenient with the Klingons. Starfleet needed the Constitutions, but the Enterprise and the Hood were not yet finished. That is what I speculated. Overall, Consitution class should be Constitution-Type if we just go with canonicity.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
I agree, but there's no reason why these ships would've been converted before the Constitution; if anything, we wouldn't have had Constitution-class because the first ship of a class names the class. The U.S. Navy is quite strict in this regard -- sometimes classes are renamed because another ship is finished before the intended class ship.
Aside from the registry numbers, another reason why this basic configuration is so old is the 40-year age from "The Making of Star Trek". That book also gives a list of Kirk's "twelve more like her", but for some reason the count works out to thirteen more. Clearly, the Valiant (NCC-1223), listed there, would've been converted to Constitution-class had it not been destroyed, and Kirk would've said "thirteen more"; it's more likely that the forty-year age is a bit off from 50-60 years than that another ship called the Valiant was built and then destroyed.
An age greater than 40 years would also fit the low registry numbers better. It's very probable that some of these ships are as old as 2196, when the Daedalus was commissioned. The Constitution/Enterprise remain 20 years old, which fits their registries.
However, since the Eagle, Endeavor, and the Saratoga are not included in this list, they must be significantly different from the Valiant. They probably were refitted only into Constitution-refit directly. The Defiant (also not on the list), with the next highest registry number (NCC-1764) is probably a newbuild or a delayed newbuild.
As for an overall designation, Constitution-type would be a U.S. Navy designation for a one-off ship without a class (although the nomenclature has been loosened somewhat). I'd call it Constitution-family.
[ April 21, 2002, 20:38: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by CaptAlabin (Member # 733) on :
Constitution-family does sound a lot better than what we have. In showing of other classes, the Excelsiors and the Mirandas would fit into that description as well.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
quote:The 1600 regos of the Constitution was actually of the Intrepid Class (because of the NCC-1631 registry) and these ships were converted because war nearly seemed imenient with the Klingons.
Now I may be misunderstanding what you're saying here or trying to say, but how can you have an Intrepid class named after NCC-1631 when we clearly have one that's Voyager's class?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"You mean the Constitution? With NCC-1700? That isn't lower than NCC-956."
So there was a Constitution-class USS Constitution w/ a registry of NCC-1700. Big deal. I'd like to see any real evidence whatsoever that calls this ship the class ship of the Constitution class. I'd also like to see any evidece you have to prove that there was no Constitution-class USS Constitution w/ a registry below NCC-956.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
This whole thing reminds me of a wonderful quote...
"Arguing online is like running in the Special Olympics... Even if you win, you're still retarded."
Truly, if there's anything I'd want to do with a time machine (after scanning the contents of the Library at Alexandria), it would be to go back and stop the VFX twits who made the Constellation from making such an easily-preventable mistake... *sigh*
--Jonah
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
^ Yeah, that'd be nice (go on, make it NCC-1710, you know you want to...) on to buisiness...
Ritten: "I was showing that not only are there blocks, there are also suffixes....
a suffix has no limit on the blocks produced under it...."
Sorry I misread .
"So there was a Constitution-class USS Constitution w/ a registry of NCC-1700. Big deal. I'd like to see any real evidence whatsoever that calls this ship the class ship of the Constitution class. I'd also like to see any evidece you have to prove that there was no Constitution-class USS Constitution w/ a registry below NCC-956."
So; a ship with registry indicating it was built c.2200 is the class ship. And only 12 of this class were built over the next 50-60 years? I'm not entirely sure that this is any more plausible than the refit idea.
I like the constitution family idea...
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I dont think we're going to make much more headway on the issue.. i prefer the 'registries are non-sequential, but vaguely chronological' theory that Constitution 1700 and Enterprise 1701 were the first ships in 2245, then subsequent ships built through different appropriations (perhaps at different yards) were given unused, older registries.
Going by the old razor that the simplest explanation is the best explanation certainly eliminates the theories that there were other classes that had simlar saucers or stardrive hulls and were upgraded to Constitutions (or the dubious explanation that like-appearing vessels were actually of different classes that just LOOKED the same ).. besides, if the Enterprise was considered old (needing that drastic refit at 25 years and being decommissioned at 40), how could we justify the Constellation 1017 not only being 40-50 years old but also having been completely restructured? Possibly the yards that built Eagle 956 and Constellation simply had been appropriated to build vessels with older registries, ships that were later cancelled and the registries unused. So when the time came to build newer ships, the old numbers were next on the list to be taken.
coming up with fantastical explanations is only confusing the issue more.
And I have to say i still agree with Veers.. its spelled 'registries', not 'registaries'
Posted by CaptAlabin (Member # 733) on :
I have to agree with Registries.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
TSN:
Even if we stick to just the canon, the question is what is the simpler explanation? That the original Constitution was destroyed and replaced by another ship so famous that it appeared in historical databanks/manuals twice (TOS, TNG), not to mention the coincidence of having a xx00 number that the Excelsior of the era had as well
or
that the Constellation and the Republic simply aren't Constitution-class (the latter we have no evidence for, the former could easily match the Danube/Yellowstone relationship, not to mention the fact that the Republic was an inaccurate AMT-kit).
BTW, there's no evidence that the class nomenclature in Kim's alternate universe was anything but realistic, else we'd expect other elements to be unrealistic likewise. Kim didn't complain.
Boris
[ April 22, 2002, 11:25: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Or easier:
NCC-1017 was as an error as U.S.S. Brittain.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, except that we know the Brittain thing was a mistake, because the people involved admitted as much. But the problem with any registry scheme is that it has to be imposed on TOS, rather than derived naturally from it. So none of these registries are, strictly speaking, mistakes, at least not mistakes on the behalf of the creative types producing them, because they had no idea we would come along 35 years later and try to get it to work in conjunction with a scheme invented decades later.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Bad Sol. No biscuit. I'm going to have to include a link to my Trek essays page in my sig, so I don't have to assume all the old-timers here are fully conversant with my theories.
The system "we're trying to impose on TOS" is the system Matt Jeffries created for the damn show, and used when making the (in)famous "Court Martial" wall chart. The VFX guys slapping the rearranged decal from the AMT kit onto the Constellation filming miniature is exactly the same sort of error that allowed the Yamato to be given a registry of 1305-E in contradiction of Okuda's intentions for that series and ship.
Don't collapse the Jeffries registry-block system with the FJ registry-block system. The two look vaguely similar at first glance, but FJ never thought to consult with Jeffries and so his system (which is the one used by fandom up through the advent of TNG) is at best only a flawed interpretation of Jeffries'.
--Jonah
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I generally use the mix of both. The ships with regstries outside the 1700+ system are considered ships of unused numbers or refitted ships. Of course to explain why I think this, I would have to explain my whole Constitution/Enterprise classes and the general political system of the 23rd century that I made up for my shelved website.
But thats just me.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
E-mail it to me, Matrix. I'm curious to see what you've come up with. And bear in mind that if we adopted Jeffries' system for the period up to about 2285, the only canon registries that would clash are the Jenolan, Revere, Columbia, and Grissom. Four out of how many?
--Jonah
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
That isn't what I'm suggesting at all. Whatever Jeffries system was, it was never made explicit in the show, or implicit for that matter. If it was, no one would bother arguing about it.
But even if we want to say that the Enterprise was the first ship of the 170th class, or the 17th class, or the 701st ship of the first class, that doesn't change the very basic fact that whatever system you may find in TOS is not the same as you'll find in TNG or elsewhere, and that any attempt to make sense of one in light of the other is always going to have, at its heart, some set of inconsistencies.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I know it isn't the same. I expounded on this at length not too long ago in a thread in this section about TOS ships... To put it in fifty words or less, I don't believe either system (Jeffries' or Okuda's) should be applied to the era in which they didn't work -- after all, trying to impose Okuda's system on TOS results in lots of headaches, and trying to impose Jeffries' system on the 24th century is just stupid.
There.
Explicit, implicit, or utterly missed, these are the two systems the people responsible for such things invented for their respective shows, and they decorated their sets accordingly. Lack of communication has resulted in what we have now:
�One system for one era... �One system for another... �One system created by a fandom author from an imperfect understanding of the older system - and then used by most other fandom shipwrights for fifteen years without challenge... �And one system created by a game company by giving a monkey a calculator (BTW, I have little love for FASA's numbering scheme)...
I'd just as soon throw out the systems created by people who didn't work on the shows, personally. And of the two systems that are left, rather than seek to promote one to the elimination of the other, I find it much easier to say that there was some fleetwide restructuring in the late 23rd century from one system to the other. If the Grissom, Columbia, and Revere were given different prefixes, and the Jenolan's registry number changed, that would eliminate all the glaring errors save for the well-known Constellation screw-up. No other problematic registries appeared prominently onscreen. I don't count the mission status display from Star Trek VI, as I still haven't found the damn thing... And besides, the only number I have a problem with on there is the new Constellation's '1974' registry. This is the best example besides the Constitution mess that I can point to for why Okuda's system shouldn't be shoehorned into the Jeffries era. It would fit perfectly at 1900, the prototype for the Cruiser class between the Miranda and Excelsior classes
Now, I am tired and so am going to bed. --Jonah
[ April 23, 2002, 02:28: Message edited by: Peregrinus ]
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
It is probably possible to pretend that Starfleet employed the alter egos of Jeffries, Joseph and Okuda, in that order, to create its starship registry schemes. A chronological overlap between them would explain some of the inconsistencies quite nicely. The remaining oddities (that in reality are due to the modelmakers giving their own random input) could then be the Scheming Senator or the Wealthy Backer or the New Visionary Leader messing things up for individual vessels or classes, until Starfleet reverts to the Good Old Way.
A gradual evolution from Jeffries to Josephs to Okuda isn't impossible to accept, mainly because there's so little evidence for Jeffries or Josephs on screen (but still enough to make it clear that the Okuda system hasn't always been in use in Starfleet). It even sounds realistic, comparable to the ways the USN or USA(A)F designation and registry systems have evolved. And this evolution still remains slightly more simplistic than the real-world equivalents, which makes it typical Trek.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
quote: Originally posted by Peregrinus: And bear in mind that if we adopted Jeffries' system for the period up to about 2285, the only canon registries that would clash are the Jenolan, Revere, Columbia, and Grissom. Four out of how many?
You forgot Entente; NCC-2120 in 2271, years before Excelsior.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Entente was not years before Excelsior in 2271 if you accept that the Excelsior would have to be around for some years before ST2. --- In this case the Excelsior Project could have started early enough to allow them to grab the 2000 NX, and the Entente was finished a few years later [but before 2271] to receive 2120.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I didn't forget the Entente or the Merrimack (however the hell it's spelled). As they would fall in the Cruiser/Starship category, there's no need to change the 'NCC' prefix.
I think it makes a lot of sense for the Federation class (the 21st Cruiser design) to be introduced as a "stopgap" when the delays of getting the 19th and 20th Cruiser designs (the Constellation and Excelsior classes, respectively) became apparant...
--Jonah
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...trying to impose Okuda's system on TOS results in lots of headaches..."
Like what?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Like the Constitution mess for starters -- by him deciding all the ships on the "Court Martial" wall chart were Constitutions, that creates the illogical and unnecessary notion that registries are non-sequential in this time period. It's pretty apparant the class ship is NCC-1700 from other sources throughout TOS, and that the other Constitutions should go upward from there. There's no reason to assign the 16xx registries to other Constitution-class ships at all -- but Okuda does.
--Jonah
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: Like the Constitution mess for starters -- by him deciding all the ships on the "Court Martial" wall chart were Constitutions, that creates the illogical and unnecessary notion that registries are non-sequential in this time period. It's pretty apparant the class ship is NCC-1700 from other sources throughout TOS, and that the other Constitutions should go upward from there. There's no reason to assign the 16xx registries to other Constitution-class ships at all -- but Okuda does.
--Jonah
Solution: Easy -
Disregard the notion that those were all Constitution Class starships, yet maintain the chronological registries idea.
Works for me.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Easy assign all the ones that are not 17xx to other classes.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
There will now follow a 3 page arguement as to what classes these ships belong to... Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...by him deciding all the ships on the 'Court Martial' wall chart were Constitutions..."
Well, by referring to Okuda's system, I figured you meant the general concept (registries are assigned in order) as opposed to the Jeffries system (first two digits == class number, last two digits == ship number) or the Joseph system (registries simply assigned in blocks to each class). Personally, I ignore the Encyclopedia's matching of registries, names, and classes for the TOS ships that weren't specified on the show.
And I'm curious what makes it "apparent" that the NCC-1700 was the class ship of the Constitution class?
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
quote: Originally posted by Peregrinus: I think it makes a lot of sense for the Federation class (the 21st Cruiser design) to be introduced as a "stopgap" when the delays of getting the 19th and 20th Cruiser designs (the Constellation and Excelsior classes, respectively) became apparant...
What delays might these be? Were they enough to delay two different cruiser class deployments for twenty years or more? If NCC-2120 is in service in 2271, then the class must have begun deployment in the mid 2260s, and design work on it may have gone all the way back into the 2250s. That argument seems a little hard to swallow, at least to me. Besides, if the Constellation was going to be delayed, why didn't Starfleet just assign the 19th class designation to the Federation class? Of course, this assumes it assigns numbers by blocks, which isn't in Jefferies' numbering scheme in the first place.
Also, by that scheme, the Constellation's registry doesn't make sense either. If she were the first ship of the 19th cruiser design, then she should have been NX-1900, not NX-1974.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
First, TSN... The use of a schematic onscreen in a couple instances in TOS showing a vessel that was Constitution-class, but not the Enterprise, as it bore the registry 'NCC-1700'. Come up with a more plausible reason why people on the Enterprise -- particularly Khan -- would be looking at just another random ship in this class rather than the lead ship or the actual ship they were on... _____
Second, Mr. Kid... I say delays because the Excelsior herself was just ready for trial runs over fifteen years after the Federation class was in service, and the Constellation was still undergoing deep-space certification trials several years after that. I carry the notion that registry numbers are assigned when the ships are ordered or laid down to their logical next step in this era, saying the hull design numbers are assigned in the order the classes begin development.
Of course, having the Constellation at 1974 is one of the little problems I observe with Okuda's system being shoehorned onto Jeffries' system. In my "personal canon" I knock the Constellation down to 1900, as the Constellation-class Hathaway was launched around the time of Star Trek III. I find it odd to think that the lead ship of a class would be still undergoing certification trials when other ships of that class are entering active service. Then, I tidy things up by saying that the 1974 ship in Star Trek VI was some other Constellation-class ship undergoing deep-space tests, and say it was the last one ordered before the registry system changeover, with the Hathaway being the first Constellation-class ship ordered after the changeover.
*whew*
--Jonah
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Woodside, the Federation design wouldnt have taken much research at all, it was a rearrangement of Constitution parts, and started production only a couple years before the end of the FYM, according to "Dreadnought!," and the earliest other mention of them was "The Klingon Gambit," during the late FYM.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:First, TSN... The use of a schematic onscreen in a couple instances in TOS showing a vessel that was Constitution-class, but not the Enterprise, as it bore the registry 'NCC-1700'. Come up with a more plausible reason why people on the Enterprise -- particularly Khan -- would be looking at just another random ship in this class rather than the lead ship or the actual ship they were on...
Umm...this never happened during TOS. It did happen in TSFS, though.
I do agree, however, that the NCC-1700 is the original class ship, because that was what it was conceived as. The NCC-1700 was always supposed to be the class ship, and has never been intended as anything else, and that's why I say it's the class ship.
-MMoM Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Come up with a more plausible reason why people on the Enterprise -- particularly Khan -- would be looking at just another random ship in this class rather than the lead ship or the actual ship they were on..."
Because the NCC-1700 was the first ship in the same configuration as the E? After all, we know there were differences between the E and the Constellation. It's reasonable to assume that there were a few subtly different version of the Connie, and the NCC-1700 happened to be the one used for the schematics of the E's version.
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
"Second, Mr. Kid... I say delays because the Excelsior herself was just ready for trial runs over fifteen years after the Federation class was in service, and the Constellation was still undergoing deep-space certification trials several years after that. I carry the notion that registry numbers are assigned when the ships are ordered or laid down to their logical next step in this era, saying the hull design numbers are assigned in the order the classes begin development."
Unfortunately, Peregrinus, this particular argument gives you a bigger problem than the one it was intended to solve. By this proposal, you state that the Constellation precedes both Excelsior and Federation in the design process. Given that Entente was pretty far down her class' procurement list (registry wise, at any rate), I think the idea that the dreadnought design process would have originally been begun in the 2250s is entirely reasonable for a class deployment a decade later. So, if Constellation and Excelsior were ordered before Federation, then they would have spent the better part of thirty years in development hell before being launched. In the meantime we see the Constitution refits, the Mirandas, the Soyuz class...well, you get the picture. This problem is particularly glaring in the case of Constellation, since she is so obviously a Connie kitbash.
Incidentally, Captain Mike, getting the Federation class out of Constitution parts would be a little rough, since the only thing they have in common is their engine design (as opposed to the Hermes, Saladin, and Ptolemy classes from FJ). Yes, both the cruiser and dreadnought have two hulls connected by a dorsal, but that's as far as it goes. There's less actual duplication of structure between Constitution and Federation than there is between the Connie refit and the Miranda.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
How about an all-inclusive deal (with licensed sources only):
1) In the TOS era, the Jefferies/Joseph system was used for hull numbers. Here, the 17th "major design of the Federation" was not a class, but rather one of several prefices for the type Heavy Cruiser. Specific classes would have their own ranges.
2) Only about thirteen ships of various heavy cruiser classes would be outfitted for exploration during TOS. The Constellation and the Republic would've been older heavy cruisers refitted into Constitution-class, as Joseph's tech manual indicates. It just happened that Constitution-class specs ended up being the best for this purpose.
3) Later on, Starfleet completely switched to something like the pennant number system, where numbers are basically linear but can change based on mission requirements and are not assigned at construction time. Most of the original Constitutions received different numbers, though some retained them. The reality is that nobody could care less whether or not the final numbers were in a sort of a strict system because any computer can hold a database of 70000+ numbers quite easily and decode the necessary information.
[ April 26, 2002, 16:56: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Can someone specify these alleged "notable differences" between the Constellation and Ent? I keep hearing this, but isn't it really just something like the bridge is slightly mis-shapen, etc? It certainly was never noticeable to me...
-MMoM Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
quote:Originally posted by: Boris
How about an all-inclusive deal (with licensed sources only):
1) In the TOS era, the Jefferies/Joseph system was used for hull numbers. Here, the 17th "major design of the Federation" was not a class, but rather one of several prefices for the type Heavy Cruiser. Specific classes would have their own ranges.
2) Only twelve ships of various heavy cruiser classes would be outfitted for exploration during TOS. The Constellation and the Republic would've been older heavy cruisers refitted into Constitution-class, as Joseph's tech manual indicates. It just happened that Constitution-class specs ended up being the best for this purpose.
3) Later on, Starfleet completely switched to something like the pennant number system, where numbers are basically linear but can change based on mission requirements and are not assigned at construction time. Most of the original Constitutions received different numbers, though some retained them. The reality is that nobody could care less whether or not the final numbers were in a sort of a strict system because any computer can hold a database of 70000+ numbers quite easily and decode the necessary information.
I really don't like #1 because going by that then we can assume that all ships down even the 9XX class was a Connie look alike (well going by the age, the Connie would be the look alike). But we most of us agree that the Enterprise is the second Connie built.
I like #2 for the reason, that they could be fitted and called a different type of ship but still retain their class distinction. For instance, having a Heavy Cruiser type Connie and a Long Range Explorer Connie.
In #3, relies on that a computer can hold 70,000+ ships and their specifications. Hell, my shit 4 year old computer can do that now. (If I delete everything). And if TOS is supposed to be more advanced that our computer they should be able to handle 70,000+ ships easily. But I get where you're going though, but I still don't agree.
quote:Originally posted by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim.
Can someone specify these alleged "notable differences" between the Constellation and Ent? I keep hearing this, but isn't it really just something like the bridge is slightly mis-shapen, etc? It certainly was never noticeable to me...
Its an AMT model, and it has small differences such as a different shaped bridge mount and so on.
Just as an addition: It is generally well known that no ship looks alike, even during construction. If we ignore the small minute details such as welding or placements of structural memebers which can be accounted for human or alien error. Ships under construction are always subject to change under admiral or captain's wishes. Eventually it becomes more apparent when the ship is docked for a refit. Where one ship is docked one year earlier, one equipment would be different from the other.
It even states somewhere in the TNG TM, about this. So its not impossible for the Constellation to be different from the Enterprise.
[ April 26, 2002, 16:58: Message edited by: Matrix ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
You wouldn't necessarily have 9xx Connies because the Eagle wasn't so numbered until after the switch (I don't recall Joseph's number for it, but it was 17xx). However, you would have one 10xx Connie and one 13xx Connie (which are stated in the Manual to be refits of other ship classes, and which for some reason retained their original numbers after the switch).
The point is that registry numbers aren't commonly used by people. People refer to "the Enterprise" or "Constitution-class Enterprise". The only time we've seen registry numbers is when they've been used to either
1) identify ships (read an unknown ship's number, look up the name in the computer -- example, Nog/Valiant, Yar/Ent-C, Riker/Yamato)
2) specify ships to a computer/recorder (Kirk/Republic, Scotty/Ent-nil).
3) list starships in computer databases.
In all the cases, there's no need to complicate the registry scheme because humans don't need to decode numbers -- the computer does that easily. In reality, you don't even need a strict order -- only that a particular number refers to a particular ship at a time. However, for some reason people liked their numbers in some kind of a system during TOS, which would be abandoned later.
Boris
[ April 26, 2002, 17:19: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
To the Woodside Kid...
Of course I'm saying the Constellation and Excelsior classes took a long time in development. One was the first canon quad-nacelled design, which I expect took a bit of time to straighten out. And the other was the testbed for a radical new propulsion system, so the developmental time on that would also take a while. While the Federation is its own distinct design, it wasn't doing anything radically different with the existing tech of the day -- save possibly the third nacelle, which probably is easier to balance than four, going by the number of classes we've seen with each configuration, respectively.
The Miranda class was the 18th Cruiser design, so it precedes all of the others we're quibbling over, and is the immediate successor to the Constitution class. And as an aside to fellow fandom fans out there, I've contradicted Todd Guenther about his Frigates. I rearranged things so the Surya-class Frigate got refit into the Knox and Daran designs. And I have the Miranda as a newbuild Cruiser, after the proposed Coventry design was deemed too big for a Frigate.
The Bozeman creates a slight problem at first glance, however, so here's the full breakdown:
They wanted a wholly new design for the Soyuz class in "Cause and Effect", but time or budget or both prevented it. So a box and some pods were added to a basic Miranda hullform, and the ship was slapped with two different registries -- NCC-1841 on the repeatedly-seen ventral saucer surface, and NCC-1941 on the never-seen dorsal saucer surface.
For whatever reason, Okuda goes with the latter, and acknowledges it's a joke reference by modelmaker Greg Jein to a previous movie he'd done model work for. It is not, however, clear which registry Jein was intending to be the 'actual' ship's registry. I don't know how likely it is that he knew the shooting requirements of the model, but if he did, and knew that only the ventral number would be seen, odds are that's the number he intended to represent the 'real' ship. But since we don't know, quibbling over it is pretty useless. Personally, I go with the 1841 rego.
There's also no indication of what the Soyuz class might have been if they'd been able to build an all-new model. As it is, it's a Cruiser, like the Miranda off of which it was built. So the 'NCC' prefix is valid for the era. Next, the number. Since I go by the more-visible (hence, canon) 1841, that puts it firmly in the middle of the Miranda family, between the Lantree and the Reliant.
At first, this might appear to be another problem of Okuda's system trying to overlay Jeffries' system, but when I actually thought about it, it lends credence to something else I'd seen -- the Decatur/Belknap family. After the prototype and basic production configuration of this design, we've got other classes, all in the same registry range, that are simply the the basic design with either added or swapped details -- like the third nacelle of the Ascension class or the Miranda-style saucer added to make the Athabaska class or the different engines and minor detailing mods that made the Impervious class. Indeed, I intend to carry this whole family over into my "personal canon", but bumped back to the NCC-2400 range, to allow for the NCC-2500 Starfleet numbering system changeover.
How I envision it working is thusly:
The lead design sets the standard. In the case of the 18th Cruiser block, this is the Miranda. Then, other classes that are simply modifications of that basic hullform remain in that number block, such as the Soyuz. I actually like projecting a little real-world fluff into a Trek context, so I'd have a debate going on for decades among Starfleet engineers and other starship afficionados as to whether the design variation led off by the U.S.S. Avenger is significant enough to warrant it being its own class. And by the time we get to TNG, the debate has been settled in favor of the "it's just a Miranda variant" camp.
One last point:
All the ship silhouettes in the Operation: Retrieve charts are dorsal Constitution-refit cutouts. All the ship indicators on the Enterprise-B's Navigation board were Excelsior-refit silhouettes. In both of those cases, all the icons were oriented in the same direction on their respective displays. And when Geordi was reconstructing what happened to create the duplicate Riker, the Enterprise-D's computer called up an profile view of an Ambassador to represent the Excelsior-class Potemkin. I find the most plausible explanation is that that's a generic 'starship' icon (for whatever era we're looking at) to be used when generating something that requires calling out a vessel's position.
In other words, I have every reason to doubt the Eagle in Star Trek VI was Constitution-class. I also defy FJ in claiming that the Republic -- while definitely a Cruiser of some stripe -- was NOT Constitution-class. Which only leaves the original Constellation as problematic, but I've written a short story about that that I think works pretty good...
--Jonah (*whew* I do rattle on, don't I...?)
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
One thing that I see often that I'd like to point out is not true, is the statement that the FJ Manual claims the Constellation and Republic are ships refitted from other classes. There is absolutely NO such claim put forth in that book. It's later stuff based on that work that claims the refittings. The original manual (which is the only old book that comes anywhere NEAR being partially official) says nothing of this.
-MMoM Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
I have the Franz Joseph manual, it just happens to be a bit over 4,000 miles away...so what does it say about the two ships?
I don't see a reason why the Constellation must be a blooper. What's the problem with Starfleet building essentially the same ships for several decades before TOS? It happens to fit both the 40-year age and the 20-year age of these ships stated in the official sources. It also fits the fact that they'd be decomissioned around the turn of the century (although I agree that the exact timing is likely a result of the Klingon peace).
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: I have the Franz Joseph manual, it just happens to be a bit over 4,000 miles away...so what does it say about the two ships?
Just that they're Constitution class and that they were lost in the line of duty.
-MMoM Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Boris, the Constellation is a blooper for the same reason the Yamato in TNG was a blooper -- the ship was given a number by people who didn't consult with the person normally responsible for such things, and as a result, the number given onscreen (seen or spoken) was in conflict with the system said person was applying to the series as a whole.
To reference another thread, this is a good example of how conflict results from miscommunication.
--Jonah
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
Jonah: Have you ever confirmed that Jeffries developed his registry system during the original series? The only basis I know for it is that one Phase II drawing with the note about it being the 17th cruiser design... the one that also says that "A" refers to the first refit of a given ship. So what I'm wondering is how you know that the system was in existence circa 1966 rather than invented circa 1977. I'm not disputing it, I'm just wondering what interview or contact or other evidence you have for it.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Page 62 of the Star Trek sketchbook. He's talking about TOS in that passage about settling on the Enterprise's number.
--Jonah
Posted by colin (Member # 217) on :
My two cents-
The readout in "Space Seed" is unreadable. I have never seen this readout in a book or other written material.
I know that material related to the original show was either destroyed or lost at Paramount Studios. So, how did Mr. Okuda see a display that was shown once and may have become destroyed or lost?
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Ok, I e-mailed Bjo Trimble to clarify this situation. She says she got some of the numbers used in her Concordance from the actual scripts or production notes -- nothing was made up.
Boris
[ May 05, 2002, 19:05: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by F. G. Sanford (Member # 818) on :
This is changing the subject, but I hate all this about a pre refit Miranda. If the Soyuz got retired so early, why couldn't it be the Soyuz be the TOS era one? The Bozeman could be a new build with all those things attached for sensory duties or weapons or whatecer they are.
FGS
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Well that was the producer's intention. They did, after all, want a TOS era design, but could not have the time to make a new model. Besides, no one is refuting that possibility. We're just saying that a TOS Miranda is (also) a possibility.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Remember, it was not as much a new model, but a combination of that and the time it would take to design and slap together a batch of TOS uniforms and size them to Kelsey and his extras, and the slightly lesser time it would take to build a bridge set contamporary to the TOS era - especially if they wanted a Constitution. Since the whole thing would boil down to a few scant seconds of screen time, the cost-benefit on a TV series budget simply wasn't feasible. Better to use off the rack movie uniforms, a stock bridge set with economical backlit displays, and modify an existing model just enough to make Geordi's "80 years" comment verbally place the ship as from a different era.
Mark
Posted by F. G. Sanford (Member # 818) on :
Well, I don't think it makes much sense to have 100+ year spaceframes out there. If the Constellations were retired '80 years ago' (Peak Performance,TNG), the Miranda's, with the some basic componets, would be outdated by the time the Ambassodors rolled around anyway. But if I can try to accept that they are still around, it would make better sense to have the Soyuz the TOS era one, because the Miranda's would be about 150 years old. The Soyuz probably started out with different componets (i.e. older looking) but equally compatible with the Constituions. Even if the Soyuz was a highly sucsessful ship, Starfleet wouldn't want a spaceframe more than 50 years old, and that means the Excelsiors are beginning to get old physically and visually getting to the end of their usable life, unless they are decommisioned ships serving with a planetary defense force, but with a Starfleet name and registry, which doesn't make a lot of sense, but wasn't I talking about the Soyuz? Because I have a tractor fifty years old and it is beginning to fall apart. When your 50 years old, your a senior citizen in the US, and while I have the upmost respect for our seniors, they begin to need more and more to survive, starting with medication (repairs) various machinerey, (taken off the front lines and put back in Federation space), and finally life support, (duct tape), and finally they go to the scrapyards. and with all the Miranda's getting activley destroyed in the Dominion wars, it would be safe to assume thet are on their last leg. SO the Soyuz was retired 70 years ago in 2368, 70 years ago would be 2288, and minus 50 years would be 2238, but enough of my essay for now, more later.
FGS
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
I doubt the Mirandas in DS9 were 100 years or more old. They had registries in the 31000s which would put them after both Ambassador sets of 10000 and 26000. In addition, the Excelsiors were even newer with mostly 40000 registries. My opinion is that these ships were probably 40 years or less old and were veterans of the earlier Cardassian War in the 2340s (probably produced for that war).
...and (to bring it up again) you are being too harsh on the Miranda's performance in the Dominion War compared to the other classes.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
There's no need to assume that just because the Soyuz was retired early, it's ridden with design flaws or is an old spaceframe. It might be that this particular modification of the basic Miranda design simply wasn't needed later on, and they stopped building it.
Also, the Constellations weren't retired 80 years ago. The Hathaway was commissioned back then, while Picard's Stargazer (Constellation class) was old during his command ("Relics"). Remember, we also saw the Victory (NCC-9754) in 2365.
[ May 05, 2002, 19:51: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Im sure there are ship types in real life that were phased out as young vessels because technology eliminated the need for what they do, or because new style warfare made it unlikely to succeed at what it did. If Starfleet suddenly invented a single emplacement that replicated the functions of all the Soyuz' greeblies, it would make the vessel quite obsolete. Or if the performance of the Soyuz' special equipment was inadequate in the new requirements put to it, that it would be more than obsolete, it would be a hindrance to maintain purposeless vessels.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: Im sure there are ship types in real life that were phased out as young vessels because technology eliminated the need for what they do, or because new style warfare made it unlikely to succeed at what it did. If Starfleet suddenly invented a single emplacement that replicated the functions of all the Soyuz' greeblies, it would make the vessel quite obsolete. Or if the performance of the Soyuz' special equipment was inadequate in the new requirements put to it, that it would be more than obsolete, it would be a hindrance to maintain purposeless vessels.
Some ships in modern times were just mistakes to begin with . . . perhaps the best example is the Mississippi Class battleships: http://www.warships1.com./USbb23_Miss.htm
Another idea we might want to ponder when trying to figure out why certain ships seem to get decommissioned rather quickly is treaties. Whole classes of vessels were decommissioned circa 1923, when a naval arms limitation treaty (a la later nuclear arms limitation treaties) was signed.
While I don't know of anything quite so grand ever occurring in Trek, we do know that the Federation has signed treaties which limit the components of its starships . . . the Treaty of Algeron (or an addendum to it) which limited the Federation use of cloaking technology comes to mind.
Just a thought.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Thank you -- that saves me the trouble of writing an essay on the subject. From all the specialized sensor rigs on the Bozeman, as well as other behind-the-scenes and novel-universe conjecture, she was a border-patrol ship. Given that our big enemies at the time were the Klingons, and given the timing Geordi's comment would indicate, I'd say the Soyuz class was retired as part of the Khitomer Accords.
--Jonah
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Sounds about right. There are a couple of special-technology ships the Klingons would probably very much want banned in the Khitomer articles. For example, if the Soyuz was a spy ship eavesdropping on Klingon transmissions across the border, then it would definitely have to go.
Or if the Soyuz was specifically devised to detect cloaked vessels, the Klingons might insist on its removal since *they* would be the main cloaking threat of the time (the Romulans apparently being buddy-buddy with the Feds). A peace treaty sounds pretty hollow if the other side still maintains a force dedicated SOLELY AND SPECIFICALLY to the defeating of your trademark technologies.
I'd still say the Soyuz was structurally inferior, too. Bolting that much extra mass onto your arse can't be good for your health. So there would have been no sense in removing the outdated or politically incorrect "special" gear and operating the ships as "standard" starships. Hence, the early and total retirement.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Bjo Trimble asked me if I could mention her website at http://www.bjotrimble.com, adding that she'll be updating it in the future (she gave me the info on the registry numbers in her Concordance, and is one of the most high-profile Trek people I've contacted yet.)
Anyway, all of the speculations are good. We probably ought to be careful with the dates, though -- 2368-80=2288. If Geordi was being more precise, the Soyuz could've well been decommissioned in the midst of the Klingon conflict. We do know from "Blood Oath" that Curzon was involved with some negotiations 81 years before, or in 2289, so maybe this is it.
Boris
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
It is possible that the Soyuz was a stopgap ship, designed to fill in between a previous border patrol/ELINT ship and a new one that was experiencing design troubles. That would explain the class being retired 'early' and also the method of the modification, "Bolting that much extra mass onto your arse can't be good for your health".
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I knock the Constellation down to 1900, as the Constellation-class Hathaway was launched around the time of Star Trek III. I find it odd to think that the lead ship of a class would be still undergoing certification trials when other ships of that class are entering active service. Then, I tidy things up by saying that the 1974 ship in Star Trek VI was some other Constellation-class ship undergoing deep-space tests, and say it was the last one ordered before the registry system changeover, with the Hathaway being the first Constellation-class ship ordered after the changeover.